Not necessarily related to the campaigns...

Take a look at Obama financially. He's unlike any contender for this office is a LONG time: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/MutualFunds/ALookAtBarackObamaTheInvestor.aspx

Look where John McCain is on this list. (Obama is No. 50, so he's not shown.) http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.asp?type=W&cycle=2005&filter=C

I must admit, I don't have anyone in my circle of friends who has a net worth like McCain. I consider us (my household) 'average' in almost every aspect. So is McCain an 'average' American who can speak about 'normal' financial concerns/microeconomics?

That sounds about right on NJBIOGRAD...I frankly think that the only reason Obama is still around is because his supporters are SO supportive. He may only get small $10-$20 donations from most people...but he gets a TON of those...and his campaign also seems to be really good at managing their money. Hillary I think has actually raised more money over all but STILL had to loan herself money. The whole thing certainly flys in the face of the assertion that "anybody" can be president....

For want of a nail, the shoe was lost. For want of the shoe, the horse was lost. For want of the horse, the rider was lost. For want of the rider, the battle was lost. For want of the battle, the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a horseshoe nail!

I think the rationale is so that they ruling elite who have power and money can outlast candidates who are not from the ruling elite who rise from grassroots organization. If the primaries are long, drawn out costly affairs, Joe Public can't get into office ahead of those who are already connected / rich. Could Obama lend himself 5 million dollars? Could Rudy? Could any of the candidates who fell out of contention after 5-6 primaries?

True about the three month of primaries but at the same time we have that already - I have heard that some people in CA have regretted voting for Hillary. George Lopez ( the comedian) voted for him in CA and is now campaigning for him in TX because he felt like he did not do enough for him back home. Perhaps a set time for campaigning/debates and then just the 1 day of primaries nation wide. Then either put the top 2 from each party or the top 4 over all but then you might have the problem of all of them being from the same party. Does anyone know the rationale as to why the primaries are so far apart now?

NJBIOGRAD - I agree...campaigns are horrible money wasters...and imagine if all the cadidates WERE using the public funds that candidates CAN use if they need to...then the money would be coming from taxpayers instead of supporters. Hell...Hillary even had to "loan" her campaign five million...I haven't even earned five million over the course of my life....

For want of a nail, the shoe was lost. For want of the shoe, the horse was lost. For want of the horse, the rider was lost. For want of the rider, the battle was lost. For want of the battle, the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a horseshoe nail!

SCHOOLMOMANGELS - I agree...and I think in the case of Richardson that it has been interesting to see that there have been states that still had him on the ballots after he dropped out and he still gets some votes...he might have had a better chance in a one day primary.

HOLLYLL - It's not stupid. The one thing I would say about having three months of primaries without results revealed would be that I wonder if there are people now who voted in the early primaries and caucuses for Clinton or someone else who...now that they've seen more of Obama wish they had voted for him instead and can't change their vote (or vice versa)...that's why in the case of the one day primary the cadidates would have six whole months after the deadline for declaring your candidacy to campaign...then everyone would have a chance to see them for six months to make up their mind and there wouldn't be a chance later for regret over having had less information (I wonder how Iowans and New Hampshirians...Hampshirillians?...were able to fully take advantage of their votes when Texans and Ohians had way more information at hand. In that case we're lucky because we've seen way more of the candidates).

For want of a nail, the shoe was lost. For want of the shoe, the horse was lost. For want of the horse, the rider was lost. For want of the rider, the battle was lost. For want of the battle, the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a horseshoe nail!

Not a bad idea - but exit polling and reuters polls would give info away anyway.

I know that money is generated in the economy of some places by campaigning - but as a non-economist, it seems like the entire campaign process is a huge waste of money. Could we pay off part of our national debt with the money spent? Finance feeding an African nation for 4 years? Pay A-rod's salary? Just seems like a huge waste of money!

I would be ok with a one day primary to eliminate the non-contenders, but would like to see something to distinguish between the real contenders then. Why not give all the candidates a chance to prove that they are for real and make it through the elimination round so to say, then give them a chance to debate and have the final primary election with a limited number of realistic choices.

So let me throw out an even wackier idea. I don't think the candidates would ever go for just a 2-3 days primary because they would feel they could never get their campaigning in but what if lets say they were 3 months of primaries but after each primary the results were not announced - none of the results are announced until that last primary - that way you have people going out to vote for their candidate and not going out to vote against a candidate. Stupid I know but just a thought.

I think one day would be best. I live in Nebraska, (next door to Iowa). Iowa is always a FRENZY at the beginnin of the election year. It is rediculous that these two states get to determine sooo much. Also, if you have one day the opposite party won't be just choosing who they think can beat the person on the other side, regardless of who they really like. Having one day, for Republicans and Democrats, to hav their primaries/caucuses would allow everyone to vote from their heart.

Point being, my co-worker, for some reason, really liked Bill Richardson. Even though our caucus was at the beginning of Februrary, she still couldn't support him because he was already gone. (Of course now she has switched to Obama which I am happy about!! LOL, but that wouldn't have been her first choice).

I can see what you're saying and it does sound like a good process...I guess the reason I was thinking one day would be good was that I figured that if you only had one day you'd definitely know who the least favorite were in one shot because we've seen how some states can give drastically different results and some of those later states in a second day run of primaries might have be enough to boost one of the lower end candidates...if nothing else...as a person who lives in Texas (I am not a Texan) I know well what its like to see 12 candidates start and only get to end up voting for what's "leftover" and with one day no state would merely have to deal with someone's leftovers...its more a matter of equity for me than whether or not the results would be different...and if everyone had to deal with the large numbers everyone would face the same choice (and problem) as everyone else. That's just my take on it. I think everyone should get an equal say on who they want (hell...my brother just last week voted for Richardson because his name is still on the ballot in Texas...some would say he wasted his vote...but its still his vote to waste).

For want of a nail, the shoe was lost. For want of the shoe, the horse was lost. For want of the horse, the rider was lost. For want of the rider, the battle was lost. For want of the battle, the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a horseshoe nail!

I would love to have no parties and have something where people would be running on their own, but yeah ... long way off.

I think the 2-3 day primary would be a compromise between current system and a single-day primary. If 17 states (some large, some small, some East, some West, some North, some South - a good 'mix' if you will) had a mega primary on Feb 1st and two candidates wound up with 12% each - they shouldn't run on Feb 15th. At least it would be a large scale rejection by voters.

I like Rudy and think that he would be a good Prez or VP. He got knocked out before he really got to run. He might have had competitive numbers with Huckabee or Romney if it was a 17 state single day deal and might have kept going ( Say McCain 40%, Romney, Huckabee and Rudy around 20% - they are all still viable. If it was 35, 25, 25, 10 - the 10 doesn't have a chance... )

In a field of 6-12 (or more) candidates, it is hard to filter everything that is out there. If the first mega-primary knocks the field down a bit and the second knocks it down a bit more, it might make a good way of chipping down a large field to the real contenders.

Another idea would be to have voting in primaries more accesible (allow voters to cast votes online, in stores, etc on a rolling basis); have a nationwide vote in the first week of January and keep the top 50% of candidates (say the top 8 of 16). Have another in the first week of February and keep the top 50 % (4 of 8). Now you would have a manageable # of candidates to have a national dialogue, debate, campaigning... and a final real primary vote (polling sites and all) on March 1st.

I don't know that I would do two or three primary days just because I think that by the second day you'd have the same problem (albeit on a much different scale) that we have now (imagine if you have 5 people running for each party for a total of ten and after the first day you had for say the Democrats one person with 25%, two with 24%, and the last two with 12%, and 3% undecided...there might not be as much reason for the last two to run in the second day and so the second day primary goers would still get cheated out of a full choice).

I agree completely that we should be under a direct vote system. My one vote should count just as much as one vote in Iowa and one vote in New York...plus if each vote counted the same I think people might vote a little differently. One person might not vote if he thinks his candidate will win a delegate rich area even if its by a small amount (or in the Republican winner-take-all states he might not vote even if his candidate only wins by 10 votes because the candidate would still get all of the delegates)...but he may vote if each vote counts and he wants there to be a larger percentage of win for his candidate...or maybe that's just me.

As for the multiple choices I guess I said it wrong...what I meant was that EACH party would have two or three (for a total of four or six) candidates...so you'd never have a situation where McCain was running against Clinton and Obama...but you might have a situation where McCain and Romney were running against Clinton and Obama (or McCain, Romney, and Huckabee vs Clinton, Obama, and Edwards)...and another solution might be that the loser of the two for each party could then be the VP of the winner. I don't know...maybe that still sounds stupid. Actually I guess it does sound kind of stupid. In all honesty if I had my way I'd simply disband all the parties, have whoever wanted to run campaign in the primary...select the top four to six from the primary (that way even Nader and any other normally third party type would have to run in order to show that they were a serious contender) and then have the people vote for those people without the taint of party affiliation...that way Clinton and Obama wouldn't be running for the Democrat party...they'd be running in essense for the Clinton and Obama parties...etc. But I don't see that happening anytime soon....

For want of a nail, the shoe was lost. For want of the shoe, the horse was lost. For want of the horse, the rider was lost. For want of the rider, the battle was lost. For want of the battle, the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a horseshoe nail!

I would sign the first. I think that everyone should have an equal say at getting their message out and heard. It might even work if their were 2-3 primary days, maybe Feb 1st, Feb 15th and Mar 1st - giving people a chance to drop, respond to pressure - all the stuff that happens. The system now where Idaho and New Hampshire determine who the rest of the country gets to think about doesn't make sense.

It also doesn't make sense that primaries and elections are decided by delegates instead of popular vote (didn't we learn from Bush v Gore in Florida?). I understand why the delegate system was used but it is modern times - I think the system needs to be revised to make everyone's vote actually count. I normally vote Republican, but my vote wouldn;t have mattered - McCain already had it. At least the proportional system gave my vote some meaning for Obama.

I agree that we should have more than two party choices for President - but having multiple choices within a party would fracture the vote. Consider McCain running against Clinton and Obama. If the Republican vote was 40% to the Dems 60% - McCain would win 40% to 31% to 29%.

...but kind of inspired by the primaries. I am thinking that after the election I am going to start a petition. This will be a real solid petition...not an online petition...because I feel the online petitions aren't as effective because they carry no real physical substance. Of course this petition would be done on recycled paper and I would ask that all the paper be re-recycled after it was delivered so as to not cause an environmental problem...but the petition idea is this: I would petition both the DNC and RNC to restructure the primary system so that after the deadline for candidates to declare their intention to run the candidates would then have six months to campaign however and wherever they see fit. At the end of the six months all states...EVERY state...would vote at the same time and after the votes are tabulated the victors would be decided and then have until Novemeber to campaign for president. Alternately I would have the top four to six candidates (based on their percentage numbers...as long as they got a least 30% of the vote for their party) to all run for president and all be on the ballot in November (which would allow people to choose more whom they like rather than force them to vote along party lines and I think would make it so that people who be forced more to actually pay attention to the issues rather than just checking Democrat or Republican when they vote)...imagine if we had McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards to vote for in November. The question...would you sign either petition or both petitions (if they were done seperately) or is this something you wouldn't be interested in?

For want of a nail, the shoe was lost. For want of the shoe, the horse was lost. For want of the horse, the rider was lost. For want of the rider, the battle was lost. For want of the battle, the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a horseshoe nail!

SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this website can be used without the permission of SparkPeople or its authorized affiliates.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.

NOTE: Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy last updated on October 25, 2013